David Laws' expenses

[longfingernailspaintedblue]

I really thought he was the very best of the Lib Dems.

Given his fortune he obviously doesn't need the expenses, but hiding his landlord/partner from the authorities is unacceptable, even if it was to hide his sexuality.

I'm completely shellshocked.

After all, if David Laws can't know when someone officially becomes a partner then how can ordinary people?

I am very glad that prominent gay campaigners such as Tatchell and Summerskill have come out against Laws. I think it has been shameful to watch the rest of the great and the good bend over backwards to praise Mr. Integrity.

Really? I'd have expected better from Tatchell.
He, of all people, should recognise that relationships aren't always easily fittable into a little tick box.

The fact that one mumsnetter says sex DOES matter and the other says it (I'm not saying either poster is right or wrong btw) only supports my view that more clarity is needed as to what exactly constitutes a partner.

And I hope that the rules are a bit more explicit in future to avoid a sorry mess like the David Laws incident occurring again.

Sorry that should be: "the other says it DOESN'T matter" (sex, that is).

If it's just about shagging then I'm not in a relationship, despite the wedding ring!

prolesworth I gotta admit it's not something I've thought about really. I mean I am actually married so there really is no wiggle room for me! .

Well, StewieGriffinsMom, this thread has prompted me to look into this "partner" business and look at the comments made by experts in the field (lawyers, CAB workers) and I've got to say that the main feature of all this "living together as man and wife" business is that it's not straightforward at all.

Anyways, what does having someone to stay mean? For all I know the (metamorphorical) single mum over the road could be just good mates with someone.

Oops. Metaphorical.

People in receipt of benefits aren't allowed to have sex? Is that true, LeninGrad? Straight question.

I was disappointed by Iain Dale, he thought Laws should have stayed. I don't agree with everything that Tatchell does, but I think that he is definitely a man of principle and integrity unlike so many of the politicians.

...and DL was "sharing accommodation" for 8 years in 2 different dwellings !!

Yes DL showed bad judgement but as marantha points out, NONE of us are in a position to declare whether this bloke qualified as a SPOUSE under the GIVEN definition which is badly worded anyway.

Response to earlier point made about whether MP's salaries should be calibrated to the London private sector including the city: well I don't think MP's need to be paid anything close to the top end of City salaries but we should compare their salaries to a wide range of jobs such as GP, dentists, starting salaries for lawyers, accountants, junior city scribblers etc. Whether we like it or not we earn a large amount of money in the UK from being global cashiers and clerks from global capital. This is a fact and Britain would be a much pooer country without this revenue. We need to diversify but that is the present state of affairs despite politicians not wanting to come out and say it. But it is a simple fact.

The point I am making above, as it isn't clear, the City is the main industry in London and it is a real alternative for our able civil servants and MPs.

"If it's thought someone is living with you, you are assessed jointly and receive less income overall."

Yes, but this isn't how the parliamentary allowances rules work, is it? They say that if you are living with a spouse-type partner, you can make a claim for more or less, as long as it's under the ceiling. They don't say that if you're living as part of a couple, you'll receive less.